With the bailout of NEC, the PUBPAT issue is carrying much less weight now.
Some prior art brought out by PUBPAT was not new, since NEC and Toshiba
already presented in their requests before PUBPAT did. The exaple I found is the
reference to Ledzius, which is the heavyly cited reference in PUBPAT
request. Three out 5 items (E to I) cited Ledzius as shown below -
=================
A. Introduction...........................
B. Summary of the Law Governing Reexamination......1
C. Subject Matter Background of the '336 Patent..........2
D. Notice of Pending Litigation Involving the '336 Patent....3
E. A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 110
is raised by Ledzius in light of Mostek, as further
evidenced by prior prosecution correspondences, Paper 6 and Paper 12. ....4
F. A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 110 is raised by
Mostek.... ..........................5
G. A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 110 is raised by
Ledzius in light of Guttag.............. ..........................5
H. A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 110 is raised by
Ledzius in light of Thaden.... ..............................6
I. A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 15 is raised by
Hitachi in light of Boney...... .................................7
=================

Another point is that examinner centainly will treat the bailout of NEC as a factor in
favor of the patent hold in patent validity considerations during reexamination process.

DD

--------

Thank you DDilligen